You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I had an opinion, as is natural, and through this discussion, I'm far more convinced than I was previously that it's sound.

The reason I can so easily invalidate your opinion is because you're only considering the advancement of homosexual causes. That's your agenda. I don't have one. I analyze all sides and predict outcomes. I've said that I'm in favor of real gay rights in free society. I just don't think the environment is right in the military to go in half-cocked and require allowance of "open" homosexuality. It's dangerous and unproductive. The military is not a social club, it's a tool.

The most obvious answer is that surveys aren't a truly scientific instrument because they're often constructed poorly and there's much more involved in the responses than how people really feel. People want to feel good about themselves as "accepting," even when they are not, and answer accordingly. They lie, even to themselves. Put Joe Army in a situation where he is bunking with Billy-Jane Army, who won't stop talking about oral sex with his boyfriend, and if Joe Army's legally required to put up with it, he might do something not quite legal to solve the problem.

My reason might be personal, but that doesn't negate that what I have contributed to the thread is logically sound. I've also given more than my opinion. In your case, that is all you have. Add bias to that as well.

Yes, there will be a few like Joe Army. In a intolerant environment like the military, it seems they would feel "good" if they ascribed to conservative beliefs. Not the other way around. While a poll isn't completely scientific, there's still relevant data to pool when they are done correctly --numerous times.

There's far more indication and evidence to suggest the majority will be fine. While all you have provided is speculation.

My reason might be personal, but that doesn't negate that what I have contributed to the thread is logically sound. I've also given more than my opinion. In your case, that is all you have. Add bias to that as well.

What bias? Being objective?

Yes, there will be a few like Joe Army. In a intolerant environment like the military, it seems they would feel "good" if they ascribed to conservative beliefs. Not the other way around. While a poll isn't completely scientific, there's still relevant data to pool when they are done correctly --numerous times.

You don't care what happens to the military or anyone not gay in it, and you've made that perfectly clear.

There's far more indication and evidence to suggest the majority will be fine. While all you have provided is speculation.

Relying on common sense never hurts. Relying on surveys of your choosing to support your agenda causes serious problems.

I am laughing hysterically at the allegation that 01001 is advancing her 'gay agenda'. And she's INTJ. It's just too perfect. :yim_rolling_on_the_

BTW, the whole "this change is too much and too sudden" is the classic argument people give against ANY hint of progressive change. I.E. Giving women the vote, giving African-Americans the vote, desegregation, etc.

There are 11 pages already, but I wonder if members in or ex military can comment?

It's my understanding that gays, lesbians, and queers in general are already VERY present and openly present in different branches of the military. I live in DC in my own queer bubble. There are LOTS of men and women and even genderqueer folk I've met who are ex or active military. I know SO MANY freaking homos in the military! Are you kidding me?? It's not like it's a shock or a secret to folks in the army that there are gays in the midst. Even kinda flaming men.

My lesbian friend graduated from West Point and eventually got stationed overseas with her dykey partner. She said some people (not all) at 'work' knew about her orientation and her partner but otherwise she was discreet.

One night at the lesbian bar, I was invited to the after party -- in Quantico, where one of the women was based. HA HA HA.

Another genderqueer flamer boy was on a break from serving in the middle east and I met him at a lesbian's house party. I cannot imagine how anyone who saw and heard him could think he was NOT queer.

These are but a tiny few personal anecdotes I have. Oh, when my lesbian and butch friend thought about joining the army way back in the early 90s, she told the recruiter, "I'm a lesbian" and he told her, "That's not a problem at all."

Again, SO MANY lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and genderqueers are already in different branches military and it's pretty known. In the "gay community" it's not uncommon at all for someone to tell you they were or are in the military.

Then again, homophobia is really a part of the culture and encouraged (in certain branches more than others) from what I've heard and seen.

I guess it depends on what you're trying to look at it.

“If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

Relying on common sense never hurts. Relying on surveys of your choosing to support your agenda causes serious problems.

In Bold For Easy Reading

JACK, YOU ARE THE PICTURE PERFECT OBJECTIVE INDIVIDUAL.WHY DIDN'T I SEE IT BEFORE. YOU HAVE SHOWN ME THE WAY.

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

Blanket parties are more fun anyway, right? There was a certain peace with that policy.

AND

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

Well, considering the omniscient and far-sighted Obama is in charge of the military, it seems you'll have your way, and I'll be proven right.

AND

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

Oh, those poor soldiers! Why are they so concerned about their sexual desires being universally accepted, and not about doing their jobs? Whatever happened to toughness? Oh, I forgot. It went out of style.

AND

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

I truly dislike those with agendas, because they're all that matter to them. No one else's concerns are valid.

^ THAT'S CRAZY, BECAUSE YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING BY INVALIDATING HOMOSEXUAL CONCERNS.

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

Put Joe Army in a situation where he is bunking with Billy-Jane Army, who won't stop talking about oral sex with his boyfriend, and if Joe Army's legally required to put up with it, he might do something not quite legal to solve the problem.

^ BECAUSE ALL GAY MEN ARE EFFEMINATE AND INAPPROPRIATELY TALK ABOUT THEIR SEX LIFE WITH UNCOMFORTABLE STRAIGHT GUYS.

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

Imagine, if you will, a large machine designed to do a job well, and a few gears in this machine decide to be selfish, saying "Hey, you, large lever arm, look at me, I'm different and you have to accept it" instead of quietly turning around like a gear should, until it's worn out and thrown back wherever gears come from.

^ AND THIS IS THE BEST ONE! IT'S SO OFFENSIVE. JACK COMPARES GAY MEN TO GEARS THAT SHOULD JUST DO THEIR JOB WITHOUT MAKING ANY NOISE, AND THEN BE THROWN AWAY.IF THAT'S NOT DEEP SEATED PREJUDICE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.

Guess what, the surveys of my "choosing" came from all across the board. Every single publication a legitimate and widely known one. It's not a niche opinion. It's across most demographics. If that means the majority of the population is conspiring to help my agenda (since you've dubbed it mine), that is great. Just because it supports human rights, doesn't make the info any less true.

Hehehe I have to admit I did laugh at this, but only because of the irony of 'out of control' T.

Onoes!

Not making fun of you, but the concept itself is pretty funny. Either that or I've had a really stressful day and can't tell the difference anymore because I'm on the verge of a hysterical* breakdown. Not sure which...

Hehehe I have to admit I did laugh at this, but only because of the irony of 'out of control' T.

Onoes!

Not making fun of you, but the concept itself is pretty funny. Either that or I've had a really stressful day and can't tell the difference anymore because I'm on the verge of a breakdown. Not sure which...

If you would care to notice, my concerns have been across the board, for homosexuals and military tradition alike, while you're only concerned with advancing an agenda of homosexuality above all.

My machine analogy was only to illustrate selfishness, and everyone's a part in the machine, not just the gay gears. Everyone gets used up and thrown away.

Since when did rationals care so much about tradition? Specifically, INTPs? There is no need for outdated mores of times past. Backtracking won't help you. Your prejudice is obvious and plain for all to see. I bolded the quotes, so everyone can see that you contradict yourself. It's not as clear cut to others, because most of your dislike is hidden behind harmless answers, but you can't hide your true feelings, Jackie boy.

Since when did rationals care so much about tradition? Specifically, INTPs? There is no need for outdated mores of times past. Backtracking won't help you. Your prejudice is obvious and plain for all to see.

What you consistently refuse to acknowledge is that I have this ability to put myself in peoples shoes, called empathy. This includes those people in the military with very conservative ways.

When you're only focused on an ideal, what you think has gotta be right, and lack empathy, well...That's what you look like.